Thanks as usual for your excellent analysis - including your correction of my ignorance in physics regarding uranium enrichment cycle.

Your comment about other Sunni states not endorsing an attack on Iran may be technically correct but is belied by the very real probability that the Saudis will allow Israeli planes overflight rights in case they attack. That smacks of some kind of support even if it would be deniable publicly.

Also, as often as you point out the limitations of power in the office of President in Iran, I will point out that Ahmadinejad (like Rafsanjani before him) has an independent power base that perhaps gives him more influence on government actions than is spelled out in the Iranian constitution. One of the least commented on aspects of Ahmadinejad is that he is the first President to have strong ties to the IRGC. Indeed, he was a high ranking officer in the Qods force and, according to Interpol and other European intel services, participated in the assassination of an Iranian dissident in Austria.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/ahmadinejad.htm

This makes the idea of probable participation of the Qods force in Iraq take on a whole new aspect and raises some interesting questions on Iranian involvement in Iraq; does Khamenei know what his President is doing? Can it both be true that Iran is not officially helping the militias and insurgents kill Americans but that an off the books operation countenanced by Ahmadinejad is being run via the Qods force?

Doubtful we’ll be able to sort it out but it should give pause to both pro and anti military strike proponents.

The debate of exact translations and the context in which Ahmedinijad said is besides the point when you look at the totality of what he’s said about Israel: The new Iranian hard-line movement, along with its titular head Ahmadinijad, wants Israel to cease to exist as a state. His solution may or may not including nuking parts of the country, but it’s clear from his other writings and speeches that the destruction of Israel, at the very least, as a political entity, is his goal.

Now, I don’t subscribe to many of the conspiracy theories about the Iranian President (the 12th Imam “death cult” being the most famous), but he is still a dangerous man.

It’s also important to point out, since most blogs and the MSM never bother to, that the office of the Iranian President cannot declare war and does not control the armed forces, nor is it in charge of the nuclear program. Those powers are reserved for the Supreme Leader. So the question becomes, does Ahmadenijad speak for the Iranian hierarchy? Probably not - Iranian internal politics are very factional and even the press has recently reported that Ahmadenijad is not the dictator (in terms of military and political power) that many have made him out to be.

To be fair, Rick is basically suggesting that given the totality of the “relationship” between Israel and Iran, Israel is justified in perceiving Iran as an existential threat and I think his assessment that no leader will allow Israel to be threatened with another holocaust is spot-on. Perhaps Khamenei will not nuke parts of Israel or threaten to, but there are others who might come to power that might. Can Israel gamble on that not happening? I don’t know, that’s for Israel to decide, but I certainly appreciate the real dilemma Israel is in and I think Rick’s post argues that well.

Would you happen to have a link?

Other, more erudite scholars, have so thoroughly debunked Dr. Cole’s “translation” that for you to keep harping on it only shows a towering ignorance of the facts.

This is not about Dr. Cole’s translation, although it’s probably accurate (and, BTW, identical to MEMRI’s own translation) — and it really makes no real difference, wiping the the country off the map or “off the pages of history”, it’s still wiped out, i.e. doesn’t exist anymore.
You in this post talk about ‘his word that _he will_ “wipe Israel off the map.”’ What he said was “[as Khomeini said], Israel should be wiped off the map”. This is a significant difference, because the only way the _he_ could do this is by nuking, meanwhile for Palestinians fully implementing the “right of return” would likely be enough. You know, kind of a little Mark Steynian “death of Europe”.
You can read the whole text — it’s all about his support for “Palestinian struggle”.
Saying “_I_ want to to wipe Israel off the map” effectively means “I want to kill millions of Palestinians and destroy their homeland”. Is it really not obvious that Ahmadinejad would not say in the speech in support of the “Palestinian struggle” that he wants to kill millions of Palestinians and to destroy their homeland??? Some people argue that he _wants_ to nuke Israel because he _hates_ Arabs and Palestinians:

It is doubtful whether such a mass killing of fellow Muslims will trouble Ahmadinejad and the mullahs. The Iranians don’t especially like Arabs, especially Sunni Arabs, with whom they have intermittently warred for centuries. And they have a special contempt for the (Sunni) Palestinians who, after all, though initially outnumbering the Jews by more than 10 to 1, failed during the long conflict to prevent them from establishing their state or taking over all of Palestine.

This is a consistent position, although it’s kind of tricky to understand how would someone want to show “special contempt for Palestinians” in the speech praising “Palestinian struggle”, but at least it’s consistent.
I’m sorry if I offended you, and it’s obviously not a lie as long as _you_ yourself believe in it, but you’re seriously misguided on this. I certainly agree with you that Ahmadinejad is genuinely scary, regardless of his stated positions. And Israel’s wish to eliminate Iran’s nuclear facilities is pretty understandable, better safe than sorry. But, speaking about diplomatic repercussions for Israel were it to take such actions that are the subject of this post, using the misconstrued quote certainly wouldn’t help their argument.

Thank you for giving us the Juan Cole propaganda version of what Ahmadinejad said.

Other, more erudite scholars, have so thoroughly debunked Dr. Cole’s “translation” that for you to keep harping on it only shows a towering ignorance of the facts.

In fact, the Iranian President said that Iran would wipe Israel off the map not once, but twice. He repeated it when questioned by western reporters on it.

Next time you call me a liar on this site, you’re banned.

Ummm, no. The centrifuges separate the isotopes, they do not “convert” anything. The centrifuges are cascaded in order to achieve an ever higher concentration of U-235 (the desired fissionable end product), until bomb-grade material is achieved in sufficient quantity.

The “Arab Street” is a paper tiger. How many times have we seen angry Muslims denounce Israel and the U.S., then go back home and pout? It’s the authoritarian governments of those people we have to curry favor with, and they don’t seem to be too keen on the idea of Iranian hegemony.

How much credibility will the mullahs have with their own people, if they have staked so much national prestige on their nuclear program, if that program is taken out by the hated Jews?

And how much does our stock go up if we become dangerous and unpredictable again, as we were in the initial aftermath of the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns? The conventional wisdom is that an attack on Iran is unwise. Is it really? Their infrastructure can’t take too much of a pounding, and their economy is suffering already, under weak sanctions. We can accept the consequences of destroying Iran’s ability to produce oil, but can they?

I think there is too much emphasis on all of the things that Iran might be able to do to us, and not nearly enough on what we certainly can do to them. It’s kind of hard to sustain a regional insurgency when your primary source of income is burning, and your military is being systematically whittled down.

There are those who do not take the Iranian President at his word that he will “wipe Israel off the map.”

With all due respect, the way people continue to use this dishonest argument is just puzzling. Anyone who knows anything about the problem knows that Ahmadinejad never said this. Anyone who understands anything about the problem knows that Ahmadinejad could never say this. Yet people continue to bring up this false quote.
Ahmadinejad said that he thinks that history will destroy the state of Israel. I.e., his position is identical to that of Hamas that refuses to recognize the state of Israel and insists on the “one state solution” — the “Great Palestine”. This is a vile and extremist position, but it has nothing to do with nuclear holocaust.
Nuking Israel would mean: 1) killing millions of Arabs, 2) destroying some of the holiest Muslim sites, 3) burying the Arabic “Palestinian project” forever. He could as well say that he wants to nuke Mecca.
Now, some would argue that he doesn’t give a damn about Arabs and Islam, that he’s really crazy and he wants to nuke Israel anyway.
That _could_ be true, but he _never_ said anything to this effect. What he _did_ say is a pretty consistent pro-Hamas position.
To claim that Ahmdanijad publicly pledged to wipe Israel off the map is to lie, and this is not a good thing when discussing such serious matters.